Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_5277_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
128 Bioactive Glass Materials for Biological Applications
• Activation of MAPK signalling leads to phosphorylation of transcription
factors and modulation of gene expression proles associated with cell pro-
liferation, differentiation, and matrix remodelling.
6.8.3 rho/rock siGnallinG pathway
Regulation of Cytoskeletal Dynamics
• Rho GTPases, key regulators of cytoskeletal dynamics and cell contractil-
ity, play crucial roles in cellular responses to mechanical cues.
• Activation of the Rho/ROCK pathway leads to actin cytoskeleton reorgani-
zation, focal adhesion maturation, and cellular contractility, inuencing cell
shape, migration, and differentiation processes.
Mechanotransduction pathways are integral to cellular responses elicited by BGs,
facilitating the translation of mechanical stimuli into biochemical signals that regu-
late gene expression and cellular behaviour. Integrin-mediated signalling serves
as a primary mechanism for sensing and transducing mechanical forces, initiat-
ing downstream signalling cascades such as the MAPK and Rho/ROCK pathways.
Understanding these mechanotransduction pathways is essential for elucidating the
mechanisms underlying cellular responses to BGs and optimizing their design for
enhanced tissue regeneration and biomedical applications.
6.9 SYNERGY WITH BIOCHEMICAL SIGNALS
The mechanical stimuli provided by BGs synergize with biochemical signals
to amplify cellular responses, fostering enhanced tissue regeneration outcomes.
Through the release of therapeutic ions, BGs complement mechanical cues, thereby
promoting cell proliferation, differentiation, and ECM production. This synergistic
interplay between mechanical and biochemical stimuli creates a holistic and effec-
tive microenvironment conducive to tissue regeneration.
6.9.1 mechanotransduction and Biochemical siGnallinG
Integration of Mechanical and Biochemical Cues
• BGs release therapeutic ions, such as calcium, phosphorus, and silicon, into
the local microenvironment, modulating cellular responses.
• These ions act as biochemical signals that regulate cellular functions,
including proliferation, differentiation, and matrix synthesis.
Complementary Effects on Cellular Responses
• Mechanical stimuli provided by BGs, such as substrate stiffness and sur-
face topography, initiate mechanotransduction pathways that inuence cell
behaviour.
129Mechanosensing Interactions of Bioactive Glasses
• Concurrently, therapeutic ions released from BGs activate intracellular sig‑
nalling cascades, further modulating cellular responses and tissue regenera‑
tion processes.
6.9.2 Promotion of Cellular aCtivities
Enhanced Cell Proliferation and Differentiation
• The combination of mechanical and biochemical stimuli synergistically
promotes cell proliferation and differentiation.
• Mechanical cues facilitate cell adhesion, spreading, and cytoskeletal remod‑
elling, while therapeutic ions regulate gene expression proles associated
with cell fate determination and tissue‑specic differentiation.
Stimulation of Extracellular Matrix Production
• Mechanical and biochemical signals cooperate to enhance ECM production
and remodelling.
• Mechanical cues stimulate ECM synthesis and assembly by promoting
cell‑matrix interactions and facilitating matrix deposition, while biochemi‑
cal signals regulate ECM composition and organization.
6.10 APPLICATIONS OF MECHANOSENSING
INTERACTIONS OF BGS
Mechanosensing interactions in BGs have profound implications across various
biomedical applications, leveraging the ability of cells to perceive and respond to
mechanical cues for tissue regeneration and therapeutic interventions.
6.10.1 Bone tissue engineering
Bone tissue engineering stands as a agship application where the mechanosensing
interactions of BGs play a pivotal role. By harnessing the ability of cells to perceive
and respond to mechanical cues, BGs offer promising solutions for promoting bone
regeneration and healing. Let’s delve into the scientic intricacies of bone tissue
engineering with BGs:
6.10.1.1 Scaf fold Design
Scaffold design is a critical aspect of bone tissue engineering, and bioactive glass
scaffolds offer versatile platforms with tailored mechanical properties and surface
characteristics to mimic the natural bone environment. Through the integration
of tailored stiffness, porosity, and surface topography, bioactive glass scaffolds
provide mechanical cues that enhance osteoblast proliferation, differentiation,
and matrix production, ultimately promoting bone regeneration and healing. Let’s
130 Bioactive Glass Materials for Biological Applications
delve into the scientic intricacies of scaffold design in bone tissue engineering
with BGs:
6.10.1.2 Tailored Mechanical Properties
Stiffness and Elasticity
• Bioactive glass scaffolds are engineered to exhibit stiffness and elasticity
resembling that of native bone tissue, ensuring compatibility with the sur‑
rounding environment.
• The stiffness of the scaffold inuences mechanotransduction pathways,
affecting osteoblastic behaviour and bone regeneration processes.
Mechanical Support and Structural Integrity
• Scaffold designs optimize mechanical support and structural integrity to
withstand physiological loads and provide a conducive microenvironment
for cell attachment and tissue ingrowth.
• Mechanical stability is crucial for supporting osteogenic differentiation
and matrix deposition by providing appropriate mechanical cues to resident
cells.
6.10.1.3 Controlled Porosity
Enhanced Nutrient Transport
• Porous bioactive glass scaffolds facilitate nutrient and oxygen transport
throughout the scaffold, supporting cell viability and metabolic activity.
• Controlled porosity enhances cell inltration and tissue integration, pro‑
moting uniform distribution of cells and matrix deposition within the
scaffold.
Mechanical Cues from Pore Structure
• Interconnected pores within the scaffold serve as channels for mechanical
cues, inuencing cell behaviour and tissue regeneration processes.
• The size, shape, and distribution of pores can be tailored to modulate
mechanical stimuli and optimize cellular responses for enhanced bone
regeneration.
6.10.1.4 Surface Topography
Promotion of Cell Adhesion and Spreading
• Surface topography of bioactive glass scaffolds, including roughness and
patterning, enhances cell adhesion and spreading by providing increased
surface area for cell attachment.
131Mechanosensing Interactions of Bioactive Glasses
• Micro‑ and nanoscale surface features direct cell alignment, migration, and
differentiation, further facilitating tissue regeneration processes.
Guidance of Osteogenic Differentiation
• Nanoscale surface roughness promotes osteogenic differentiation of MSCs
by modulating cell‑matrix interactions and signalling pathways.
• Microscale surface grooves guide the orientation and migration of osteoblasts,
inuencing matrix deposition and bone tissue formation within the scaffold.
6.10.1.5 Release of TheRapeuTic ions
Support for Bone Mineralization
• Bioactive glass scaffolds release therapeutic ions, such as calcium and phos‑
phate, into the local microenvironment, supporting bone mineralization and
healing.
• These ions act as biochemical signals that regulate osteogenic differentia‑
tion, matrix mineralization, and bone tissue regeneration processes.
6.11 DESIGN AND LOADING CHARACTERISTICS
Scaffold design is a crucial aspect of bone tissue engineering with BGs, enabling the
creation of biomimetic platforms that mimic the natural bone environment and pro‑
mote enhanced bone regeneration and healing. By integrating tailored mechanical
properties, controlled porosity, surface topography, and release of therapeutic ions,
bioactive glass scaffolds offer versatile solutions for addressing bone defects and
injuries, driving advancements in regenerative medicine and orthopaedic healthcare.
Continued research in scaffold design and optimization will further enhance the ef‑
cacy of bioactive glass scaffolds in bone tissue engineering applications, leading to
improved clinical outcomes and patient care.
6.11.1 Dynamic loaDing
Dynamic loading, particularly when combined with BGs, represents a promising strat‑
egy to enhance bone formation and tissue development in bone tissue engineering
applications. By subjecting BGs to cyclic mechanical loading within dynamic load‑
ing environments like bioreactors, researchers can stimulate osteogenic differentiation
and accelerate bone tissue development. This approach harnesses the mechanosensing
capabilities of BGs to optimize bone regeneration processes. Let’s delve into the scien‑
tic underpinnings of dynamic loading in bone tissue engineering with BGs:
1. Mechanosensitive Response of Cells
Osteogenic Differentiation
• Mechanosensitive cells within bone tissue, including osteoblasts and
MSCs, respond to mechanical cues by initiating osteogenic differentia‑
tion pathways.
132 Bioactive Glass Materials for Biological Applications
• Cyclic mechanical loading triggers mechanotransduction mechanisms,
activating signalling pathways involved in osteogenic gene expression
and matrix mineralization.
Enhanced Cellular Activities
• Dynamic loading stimulates cellular activities essential for bone forma‑
tion, including cell proliferation, ECM synthesis, and mineralization.
• Mechanosensitive cells exhibit increased metabolic activity and upregu‑
lation of osteogenic markers in response to cyclic mechanical stimulation.
2. Optimization of Scaffold Integration
Improved Tissue Ingrowth
• Dynamic loading promotes tissue ingrowth and scaffold integration by
enhancing cell migration, proliferation, and matrix deposition within
bioactive glass scaffolds.
• Mechanical stimulation facilitates the inltration of osteogenic cells into
the scaffold, leading to more uniform distribution and enhanced tissue
development.
Enhanced Vascularization
• Cyclic mechanical loading stimulates angiogenic responses within the
engineered tissue, promoting the formation of functional blood vessels
and improving nutrient transport and waste removal.
• Enhanced vascularization supports cell survival and metabolic activity,
contributing to the overall success of bone tissue regeneration.
3. Accelerated Bone Remodelling
Facilitation of Bone Remodelling Processes
• Dynamic loading accelerates bone remodelling processes by modulating
the activities of osteoblasts and osteoclasts.
• Mechanical stimulation promotes the resorption of old bone tissue and
the formation of new bone, leading to enhanced bone turnover and
remodelling within the engineered tissue.
Optimization of Bone Quality
• Cyclic mechanical loading optimizes bone quality by promoting the
alignment and organization of collagen bres and the deposition of min‑
eralized matrix.
• Mechanical cues from dynamic loading environments contribute to the
development of structurally sound and functionally competent bone
tissue.
Dynamic loading in combination with BGs offers a promising approach to optimize
bone tissue engineering outcomes by harnessing the mechanosensitive nature of bone
cells. By subjecting bioactive glass scaffolds to cyclic mechanical stimulation within
133Mechanosensing Interactions of Bioactive Glasses
dynamic loading environments, researchers can stimulate osteogenic differentiation,
enhance scaffold integration, and accelerate bone remodelling processes. Continued
research in this area will further elucidate the mechanisms underlying the synergistic
effects of dynamic loading and BGs on bone regeneration, paving the way for innova-
tive strategies in regenerative medicine and orthopaedic healthcare.
Successfully navigating the regulatory approval process for BGs requires a
comprehensive and strategic approach. By conducting rigorous preclinical and
clinical studies, adhering to quality assurance standards, and engaging with regu-
latory authorities, developers can demonstrate the safety and efcacy of bioac-
tive glass products. Overcoming these regulatory hurdles is essential for bringing
innovative bioactive glass technologies to clinical practice and improving patient
outcomes.
Looking ahead, the versatility of BGs holds immense potential for addressing a
spectrum of medical needs across diverse therapeutic areas. From bone tissue engi-
neering to wound healing and drug delivery systems, BGs offer versatile platforms
for tailored solutions to complex medical challenges. Through sustained interdis-
ciplinary collaboration and concerted efforts to overcome technological barriers,
BGs are poised to revolutionize medical interventions, enhancing human health and
well-being on a global scale. As such, continued commitment to research, innova-
tion, and collaboration will be paramount in unlocking the full potential of BGs and
realizing their transformative impact in healthcare.
REFERENCES
1. M. V. Thomas, D. A. Puleo, and M. Al-Sabbagh, “Bioactive glass three decades on,”
Journal of Long‑Term Effects of Medical Implants, vol. 15, no. 6, pp.585–597, 2005,
doi: 10.1615/JLongTermEffMedImplants.v15.i6.20.
2. F. Baino, “Bioactive glasses and glass-cera mics,” Enc yclopaedia of Materia ls: Technical
Ceramics and Glasses, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. V3-614-V3-623, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.1016/
B978-0-12-803581-8.12088-0.
3. L. L. Hench, “Bioceramics: from concept to clinic,” Journal of the American
Ceramic Society, vol. 74, no. 7, pp. 1487–1510, 1991, doi: 10.1111/j.1151-2916.1991.
tb07132.x.
4. L. L. Hench, “The story of Bioglass®,” Journal of Materials Science: Materials in
Medicine, vol. 17, no. 11, pp.967–978, 2006, doi: 10.1007/s10856-006-0432-z.
5. S. Gupta, S. Majumdar, and S. Krishnamurthy, “Bioactive glass: a multifunctional
delivery system,” Journal of Controlled Release, vol. 335, pp. 481–497, 2021, doi:
10.1016/j.jconrel.2021.05.043.
6. P. Fratzl and F. G. Barth, “Biomaterial systems for mechanosensing and actua-
tion,” Nature 2009 462:7272, vol. 462, no. 7272, pp.442–448, 2009, doi: 10.1038/
nature08603.
7. P. Fratzl, “Biomimetic materials research: what can we really learn from nature’s struc-
tural materials?,” Journal of the Royal Society Interface, vol. 4, no. 15, pp.637–642,
2007, doi: 10.1098/rsif.2007.0218.
8. M. H. Kaou, M. Furkó, K. Balázsi, and C. Balázsi, “Advanced bioactive glasses: the
newest achievements and breakthroughs in the area,” Nanomaterials, vol. 13, no. 16,
p.2287, 2023, doi: 10.3390/NANO13162287.
134 Bioactive Glass Materials for Biological Applications
9. M. Cannio, D. Bellucci, J. A. Roether, D. N. Boccaccini, and V. Cannillo, “Bioactive
glass applications: a literature review of human clinical trials,” Mater ials (Basel),
vol. 14, no. 18, 5440. 2021, doi: 10.3390/ma14185440.
10. H. Guo, X. Peng, X. Dong, J. Li, C. Cheng, and Q. Wei, “Promoting stem cell mecha-
nosensing and osteogenesis by hybrid soft bers,” ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces,
vol. 15, no. 41, pp.47880–47892, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.3c07999.
11. S. Banijamali, M. Heydari, and M. Mozafari, “Cellular response to bioactive
glasses and glass–ceramics,” In Masoud Mozafari (ed), Handbook of Biomaterials
Biocompatibility, pp.395–421, Woodhead Publishing Series in Biomaterials. 2020, doi:
10.1016/B978-0-08-102967-1.00019-0.
12. G. Kaur, V. Kumar, G. R. Pickrell, J. C. Mauro, Y. Lin, and S. K. Arya, “Bioactive
glasses in gene regulation and proliferation,” Biomedical, Therapeutic and Clinical
Applications of Bioactive Glasses, pp.175–200, 2019, doi: 10.1016/B978-0-0 8-102196-5.
00006-9.
13. K. Kajander, S. V. Sirkiä, P. K. Vallittu, T. J. Heino, and J. A. Määttä, “Bioactive glasses
promote rapid pre-osteoblastic cell migration in contrast to hydroxyapatite, while car-
bonated apatite shows migration inhibiting properties,” Scientic Reports, vol. 13, no. 1,
pp.1–14, 2023, doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-47883-2.
14. D. F. Williams, “Biocompatibility pathways and mechanisms for bioactive materials:
The bioactivity zone,” Bioactive Materials, vol. 10, pp.306–322, 2022, doi: 10.1016/
J.BIOACTMAT.2021.08.014.
15. L. Azizi, P. Turkki, N. Huynh, J. M. Massera, and V. P. Hytönen, “Surface modication
of bioactive glass promotes cell attachment and spreading,” ACS Omega, vol. 6, no. 35,
pp.22635–22642, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.1c02669.
16. D. Bellucci etal., “Human mesenchymal stem cell combined with a new strontium-
enriched bioactive glass: an ex-vivo model for bone regeneration,” Materials,vol. 12,
no. 21, 3633. 2019, doi: 10.3390/MA12213633.
17. P. Naruphontjirakul, O. Tsigkou, S. Li, A. E. Porter, and J. R. Jones, “Human mes-
enchymal stem cells differentiate into an osteogenic lineage in presence of strontium
containing bioactive glass nanoparticles,” Acta Biomaterialia, vol. 90, pp. 373–392,
2019, doi: 10.1016/J.ACTBIO.2019.03.038.
18. G. Kaur etal., “Mechanical properties of bioactive glasses, ceramics, glass-ceramics
and composites: state-of-the-art review and future challenges,” Materials Science and
Engineering C, vol. 104, 109895.2019, doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2019.109895.
19. A. Mohammadkhah and D. E. Day, “Mechanical properties of bioactive glass/
polymer composite scaffolds for repairing load bearing bones,” International
Journal of Applied Glass Science, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 188–197, 2018, doi: 10.1111/
IJAG.12339.
20. M. S. El-khooly, A. S. Abdraboh, A. M. Bakr, and K. H. T. Ereiba, “Bioactivity and
mechanical properties characterization of bioactive glass incorporated with gra-
phene oxide,” Silicon, vol. 15, no. 3, pp.1263–1271, 2023, doi: 10.1007/S12633-022-
02088-6.
21. E. Pirhonen, L. Moimas, and M. Brink, “Mechanical properties of bioactive glass
9-93 bres,” Acta Biomaterialia, vol. 2, no. 1, pp.103–107, 2006, doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.
2005.08.008.
22. H. Abreu etal., “Human T-cell responses to metallic ion-doped bioactive glasses,”
International Journal of Molecular Sciences, vol. 25, no. 8, 4501. 2024, https://doi.
org/10.3390/ijms25084501.
135Mechanosensing Interactions of Bioactive Glasses
23. K. Zheng, W. Niu, B. Lei, and A. R. Boccaccini, “Immunomodulatory bioactive glasses
for tissue regeneration,” Acta Biomaterialia, vol. 133, pp.168–186, 2021, doi: 10.1016/
j.actbio.2021.08.023.
24. J. Park and D. Kim, “Advanced immunomodulatory biomaterials for therapeutic appli-
cations,” Advanced Healthcare Materials, 2024, doi: 10.1002/ADHM.202304496.
25. J. Bobo, A. Garg, P. Venkatraman, M. Puthenveedu, and P. R. LeDuc, “3D in vitro neu-
ron on a chip for probing calcium mechanostimulation,” Advanced Biosystems, vol. 4,
no. 10, 2000080. 2020, doi: 10.1002/ADBI.202000080.
7
Recent Advances in
Additive Manufacturing
for Printing Biological
Tissues
Vishnu Vijay Kumar, S. Shiva,
R. G. Asuwin Prabu, P. Navaneetha Krishnan,
Shrishail B. Sollappur, M. Sharan Chandran
and Muhammad Akhsin Muikhun
7.1 INTRODUCTION
Biomaterials have become indispensable in the elds of regenerative medicine,
dentistry, and infection treatment, playing a crucial role in the restoration and
enhancement of biological functions [1–6]. In the eld of regenerative medicine, they
are used to create scaffolds that guide cellular growth and tissue regeneration [3].
Among the various biomaterials, bioactive glasses (BGs) are considered a group of
reactive ceramic materials with attractive properties (Field [7]). Primarily composed
of silica, calcium, sodium, and phosphorus [8], BGs are designed to interact positively
with biological tissues, making them particularly suitable for medical applications.
One of its key properties is the ability to bond with living tissues through the forma-
tion of a hydroxyapatite layer on its surface that mimics the mineral composition of
bone. This bioactivity facilitates its integration with the surrounding tissues, promot-
ing bone regeneration and healing. Furthermore, BG exhibits excellent mechanical
strength, making it an ideal candidate for various biomedical applications, such as
bone grafts, dental implants, and tissue engineering scaffolds. Its controlled degrada-
tion over time allows for the gradual release of essential ions, promoting cell growth
and enhancing the overall healing process.
Bioactive glass was rst developed by Larry Hench and colleagues at the
University of Florida [1] and was the rst reported material to form an interfacial
bond with host tissue after implantation. The composition of the rst BG was 46.1%
SiO
2
, 24.4% NaO, 26.9% CaO, and 2.6% P
2
O
5
, in mol%, trademarked as 45S5
Bioglass
®
. Since then, several types of BGs have been developed primarily centred
around Hench’s original formulation, with the classic 45S5 Bioglass
®
composition
offering remarkable advantages due to its high bioactivity and osteoconductivity. The
S53P4 BG, commercially known as BonAlive® was developed in the early 1990s
136
137Recent Advances in Additive Manufacturing for Printing
at Åbo Akademi University and University of Turku and was the rst BG having a
composition different from 45S5 [8]. They deteriorated slowly and had stronger net-
work connectivity and sintering range than Bioglass®. Another type of BG material
was borate-based 13-93B, which replaced SiO
2
with B
2
O
3
and included additional
K
2
O and MgO as network modiers. They were widely utilized to create scaffolds
for tissue engineering [2, 9, 10].
A plethora of scientic literature is available for research on various types of
BG materials targeting specic properties and applications [11–17]. However, it is to
be noted that despite achieving desired properties, bioactive materials for medical/
biological applications require adequate mechanical strength to bear loads and must
be shaped for specic requirements, necessitating careful manufacturing. The con-
ventional manufacturing methods are the melt-quench and sol-gel methods [18,19].
The melt-quench technique involves melting raw materials at high temperatures fol-
lowed by rapid cooling to form glass [20–22]. In contrast, the sol-gel process requires
lower temperatures. The sol-gel method is a wet-chemical process where a solution
undergoes gelation and is subsequently heat-treated to form glass [23–25]. However,
these approaches have inherent limitations. The melt-quench technique faces lim-
itations in design complexity and time efciency primarily due to its reliance on
molds and subtractive manufacturing processes. Creating molds for intricate designs
is a time-consuming process, with each unique design requiring new molds. This
contributes to longer lead times and increased costs. Additionally, the subtractive
machining methods that involve the removal of excess material to achieve the nal
shape further limit the intricacy of designs that can be realized. Also, the batch
processing methods commonly employed for conventional manufacturing pose chal-
lenges for customizing each product to specic design requirements, particularly in
applications requiring individualized components such as patient-specic implants.
Furthermore, the setup and changeover time for machinery as well as the need for
skilled labour, contribute to the perceived limitations in time efciency and design
exibility [26, 27].
On the other hand, the sol-gel method, despite its distinctive advantages, presents
certain drawbacks. A notable challenge is the difculty in achieving consistent and
reproducible products on a large scale. Variations in precursor concentrations and
processing conditions can potentially undermine the uniformity of the nal product,
posing challenges in maintaining quality and reliability across production batches.
Scalability is another concern associated with the sol-gel method. The precision
achieved in the smaller-scale production encounters obstacles when attempting to
scale up to industrial levels. This transition introduces difculties in maintaining the
same level of control and uniformity, impacting the efciency and reliability of the
manufacturing process. In this context, the role of additive manufacturing (AM), also
widely known as three-dimensional (3D) printing, emerges as a promising technique
(Field [28–30]). The foremost advantage of 3D printing in BG production lies in its
unparalleled design exibility. The layer-by-layer additive approach allows for the
creation of intricate and customized structures, making it particularly advantageous
for applications requiring patient-specic implants and complex designs.
Recent research is focused on the 3D printing of BGs for a variety of applica-
tions, including orthopaedic and dental implants, scaffolds for tissue engineering,